구조론적 마르크스주의 교육사회학의 딜레마

서지정보

ㆍ발행기관 : 한국교육학회 ㆍ수록지정보 : 교육학연구 / 28권 / 3호
ㆍ저자명 : 오욱환

목차

Ⅰ. 교육사회학에서 마르크스 이론
Ⅱ. 마르크스주의 교육사회학 분류
Ⅲ. 구조론적 마르크스주의 교육사회학의 한계
Ⅳ. 마르크스주의 교육사회학의 가능성 : 다시 마르크스 이론에서
참고문헌
ABSTRACT

영어 초록

Marx did not build any educational theory except a few lines on education. Since the 1970s, however, his idea has been highly developed in the sociology of education. Before the 70s, most of the sociologists of education have developed their educational theories on the basis of functionalism, which implies an optimistic viewpoint about modem society and supports individualism and liberalism. In short, the functional theorists of education are conservative. They have presented liberal educational reforms in which any radical or structrural change of society cannot be accepted. Liberal educational reforms in Western societies have not achieved the expected results including equal educational opportunity. Here, many sociologists of education have criticized the liberal eduational reforms and theories based on functionalism. Some of them have accepted Marxism as an alternative theoretical framework.
However, all sociologists of education who have developed their theories on the basis of Marxism have not shared common academic backgrounds and aims. Some of them have tried to divulge the instrumental dependence of education on capitalism. which has supported the bourgeoisie or the ruling class. Others have attempted to build an equal and just society. The main intention of the former theorists is to destruct capitalism and its economic structure. According to their explanation, the capitalist economic structure determines everything in society. Their basic assumption is : "The infrastructure determines the superstructure." Our living condition determines our consciousness. In capitalist societies, all non-economic institutions have been constructed to adequately function for the capitalist mode of production and the capitalist relations between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Schooling in capitalist societies corresponds to their economic system.
The structural Marxists in education have some serious limitations in explaining schooling in capitalist societies and in suggesting alternatives for educational and social change. These limitations come from their defintion of Marxism and its application to education in capitalist societies. The structural Marxist sociology of education has the following characteristics : ⑴ Economy determines everything else(economic determinism). ⑵ The structure determines ideology. ⑶ The state is used for maintaining capitalism. ⑷ Education is used instrumentally to reproduce the capitalist mode of production and the capitalist relations of producation. ⑸ The education cannot have any (relative) autonomy. ⑹ The theorists in this side of Marxism are Althusser, Bowles and Gintis.
The limitations of structural Marxist sociology of education force its proponents to fall into dilemmas. First, the structural Marxist sociology of education is short in explaining the education in modem societies. Contemporary capitalist societies are post-industrial societies, which cannot be compared, in their complexity, with the early capitalist societies. Modem capitalists cannot control and manipulate workers as conveniently as the bourgeoisie did in the days of Marx. The capitalists or the ruling class of complex modem societies control the masses through the power and the authority of the state. The state is highly influenced by the ruling class but it cannot arbitarily reject the demands of the masses. Education in modem societies is a pulblic sector, therefore it is influenced by economy as well as the state. Education is modeled by the ruling class and the masses. The structural approach which focuses only on economy cannot precisely explain the education in modem societies.
Second, the structural Marxist approach has failed to suggest any alternative to build a society imagined by Marx. The structuralists have successfully criticized the capitalist society and its education. However, their alternatives are never radical because the strategies and the agents to act for changes are not included. Marxism originally has two merits : one is critical power toward the capitalist society, and the other is radical In suggesting for alternatives for a just and equal society.
Third, the educational theorists who apply Marxism to their theories have tried to overcome the limitations of the functional interpretation about education in modern society. Ironically, the structural Marxists in education are criticized as another functionalists. The critics classified the well-known Neo-Marxist Althusser as a functionalist. Bowles and Gintis are named Parsonians. Even though the structuralists critically explain the educational system in capitalist societies, their explaining pattern is typically functional and their explanation has focused only on the evil-side function of education in capitalist society. Their structural approach can be labeled as a 'negative functionalism.'
Fourth, Marx and Marxists believe the possibility of social change by and for men. The majority of men have been oppressed by the ruling class and alienated from the process of production and the products Here, if the men recognize and accept their poor and oppressed living situation as their individual failure, then who can lead to transform capitalist society into socialist society? And under the capitalism which determined everthing including the state and men's thinking, who can lead the revolution for the classless society. Educational theorists believe the possibilities of educational and social change by educating the men. Therefore, some radical theorists of education cannot be satisfied with the structural Marxist sociology of education which does not include the possibility of educational and social change initiated by men. The limitations of the structural Marxist approach are due to its focusing on class domination without considering 'class struggle'.
In Marxism, radical change to an equal and just society (socialist society) is necessary and inevitable. The structural Marxist sociology of education, however, has not succeeded to posit the possibility of social change through education. Rather, the theory has argued that educational change is not possibile without the change of social structure (which means economic system). Marxist sociology of education should be rebuilt by overcoming the functional interpretation of education. The only way to regain the meits of the genuine Marxism in the sociology of education is to dialectically synthesize infrastructure and superstructure.

참고 자료

없음